A question

Good science/bad science

Hello and welcome to RatSkep! :smile: Why don't you introduce yourself here? ;)

Moderators: DarthHelmet86, campermon

A question

#1  Postby Gareth » Jan 28, 2016 5:12 pm

Some skeptics are proud of being too smart to believe anything at all and will happily argue that black is white. Others just like to tell the devout how dumb they are.

I'm hoping to find some real skeptics on RatSkep -- people who like to think about stuff and reach rational conclusions.
What are my chances?

The reason I ask is because I'd like to enter the Ratskep writing competition on the given topic of a scientific hypothesis that failed. Science-oriented sites usually refuse to post anything that calls into question anything that any scientist ever said about anything (despite the fact that you can't get any two scientists to agree about anything).

Would a person like me be welcome here?
Gareth
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Gareth Morgan
Posts: 181

Country: Greece
Wales (we)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: A question

#2  Postby campermon » Jan 28, 2016 5:48 pm

Gareth wrote:

Would a person like me be welcome here?


Hi Gareth,

All who keep to the FUA are welcome here.

Welcome to the forum!
:beer:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17437
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: A question

#3  Postby laklak » Jan 28, 2016 5:57 pm

Give it a shot. What hypotheses were you thinking of taking on? Could be an interesting conversation.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 67
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: A question

#4  Postby logical bob » Jan 28, 2016 6:06 pm

Hello Gareth. I see that your second post on Ratskep is an assertion supported by a link to Creation Ministries. I suspect this doesn't bode well for your prospects, but time will tell.

To be honest the fact that you've started out by planting the seed that if we don't agree with you we must be closed minded suggests that you aren't very confident either.
User avatar
logical bob
 
Posts: 4482
Male

Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: A question

#5  Postby Mazille » Jan 28, 2016 6:08 pm

Have fun, although we haven't held one of those competitions in years. You're always welcome to open your own thread, though.

Oh, and welcome! :cheers:
- Pam.
- Yes?
- Get off the Pope.
User avatar
Mazille
RS Donator
 
Posts: 19741
Age: 35
Male

Austria (at)
Print view this post

Re: A question

#6  Postby Sendraks » Jan 28, 2016 6:26 pm

Hi Gareth - welcome to the lifeboat.

I'm curious to know where you're going with your proposed competition entry. Anyone who has worked in scientific academia will know that the halls a strewn with failed undergraduate and post-graduate hypothesises.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: A question

#7  Postby Macdoc » Jan 28, 2016 6:47 pm

Welcome

I'm hoping to find some real skeptics on RatSkep -- people who like to think about stuff and reach rational conclusions.
What are my chances?


to be a skeptic requires a strong science base in the specific field to dispute the standing science....that's what peer review is about ...a peer reviewer can question and probe a paper because they are well versed in the field.

The greater the skeptical claim - the stronger your knowledge of the field and the strength of opposing evidence needs to be.

Generally we find that the badge of "skeptic" is used from a position of ignorance rather than depth of knowledge. A link to Creation Ministries.....would be a position arising from ignorance ...not evidence.

Proceed from there... :coffee:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 73
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: A question

#8  Postby Animavore » Jan 28, 2016 8:07 pm

Gareth wrote:
Some skeptics are proud of being too smart to believe anything at all and will happily argue that black is white.


I'm skeptical of that claim.

Gareth wrote:Others just like to tell the devout how dumb they are.


I'm skeptical of that claim.

Gareth wrote:

I'm hoping to find some real skeptics on RatSkep


I'm skeptical of that claim.

Gareth wrote:people who like to think about stuff and reach rational conclusions.


I'm skeptical of that claim.

Gareth wrote:What are my chances?


Doubtful.

Gareth wrote:
The reason I ask is because I'd like to enter the Ratskep writing competition on the given topic of a scientific hypothesis that failed.


I'm skeptical of that claim.

Gareth wrote:Science-oriented sites usually refuse to post anything that calls into question anything that any scientist ever said about anything


I'm skeptical of that claim.

Gareth wrote:(despite the fact that you can't get any two scientists to agree about anything).


I'm skeptical of that claim.

Gareth wrote:
Would a person like me be welcome here?


Fáilte.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44748
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: A question

#9  Postby Thommo » Jan 28, 2016 8:25 pm

Animavore wrote:
Gareth wrote:
Some skeptics are proud of being too smart to believe anything at all and will happily argue that black is white.


I'm skeptical of that claim.


I can find you one arguing that the sky is not blue, if you'd settle for that. :ask:
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27175

Print view this post

Re: A question

#10  Postby Animavore » Jan 28, 2016 8:26 pm

Thommo wrote:
Animavore wrote:
Gareth wrote:
Some skeptics are proud of being too smart to believe anything at all and will happily argue that black is white.


I'm skeptical of that claim.


I can find you one arguing that the sky is not blue, if you'd settle for that. :ask:

*looks outside* But it isn't. :dunno:
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44748
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: A question

#11  Postby Thommo » Jan 28, 2016 8:30 pm

Animavore wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Animavore wrote:
Gareth wrote:
Some skeptics are proud of being too smart to believe anything at all and will happily argue that black is white.


I'm skeptical of that claim.


I can find you one arguing that the sky is not blue, if you'd settle for that. :ask:

*looks outside* But it isn't. :dunno:


No, no, not there. Over there *points*. :naughty2:

(Incidentally, I suspect this is what the OP refers to. If we can query whether "the sky is not blue" because it doesn't scatter blue light when insufficient white light is shining on it, due to the phase of axial rotation, then we could probably point to a white painted cupboard or radiator in a darkened room that isn't reflecting white either. And thus engage in a kind of deliberate missing the point which can be hugely frustrating where it's not appropriate).
Last edited by Thommo on Jan 28, 2016 8:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27175

Print view this post

Re: A question

#12  Postby Animavore » Jan 28, 2016 8:31 pm

Thommo wrote:
Animavore wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Animavore wrote:

I'm skeptical of that claim.


I can find you one arguing that the sky is not blue, if you'd settle for that. :ask:

*looks outside* But it isn't. :dunno:


No, no, not there. Over there *points*. :naughty2:

I concede it might be a very, very, very, very, very dark blue.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44748
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: A question

#13  Postby Gareth » Jan 28, 2016 8:49 pm

So many responses. Great. I like you all already and I'd like to reply to every one. How can I do that?
Gareth
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Gareth Morgan
Posts: 181

Country: Greece
Wales (we)
Print view this post

Re: A question

#14  Postby Animavore » Jan 28, 2016 8:50 pm

Gareth wrote:So many responses. Great. I like you all already and I'd like to reply to every one. How can I do that?

Hit "reply".
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44748
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: A question

#15  Postby Gareth » Jan 28, 2016 8:56 pm

And what are Creation Ministries ? Yes I see now that the competition was a few years old. The subject would have been the Bernoulli hypothesis of lift in aerofoils.
Gareth
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Gareth Morgan
Posts: 181

Country: Greece
Wales (we)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: A question

#16  Postby Macdoc » Jan 28, 2016 8:58 pm

we're all listening

:popcorn:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 73
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: A question

#17  Postby Gareth » Jan 28, 2016 8:58 pm

I don't see anything marked 'reply'.
Gareth
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Gareth Morgan
Posts: 181

Country: Greece
Wales (we)
Print view this post

Re: A question

#18  Postby Gareth » Jan 28, 2016 9:01 pm

Okay, if you're all listening I'll paste something in that I wrote recently on the subject.

Aerodynamic lift.
Case study: - Boeing 707 320B
Operating empty weight - 65,400 Kg.
Wing area - 283 sq. metres
Wingspan - 44.4 Metres
Average wing width 6.37 metres
Takeoff speed - 67 metres per second (150mph)
Air density at sea level - 1.25 kg/cu. metre
Angle of attack- 45 degrees
Atmospheric pressure - 10194 kg/ sq metre


Newton
Gravitational force (downwards) on the aircraft is 65,400 x 9.8 = 650,920 Newtons.
At 45 degrees of elevation the wing area, viewed from in front, will be 70% of 283, = 198 sq metres.
At 67 mps , 67 x 198 = 13,266 cubic metres of air will strike the underside of the wing every second.
If air density is 1.25kg/cu metre, then 1.25 x 13,266 = 16,562.kg of air strikes the underside of the wing every second.
At 67 mps the force generated will be 67 x 16,562 = 11,5934 kg metres/second per second ( 11,5934 Newtons).
At 45 degrees, half of this will be drag and half will be lift. This is insufficient to lift the aircraft.

Boyle
In addition however, at 45 degrees elevation, average wing width, viewed from ahead (i.e. the thickness of the airstream impinging on the wings) will be 70% of 6.37 = 4.46 metres. If the thickness of the airstream slipping out under the trailing edge of the wing is only, say, 44.6 centimetres thick. then the pressure there will be 10 times atmospheric pressure and will average 5x atmospheric pressure across the whole width from front to back..
5bar. (5 x 10194) = 50,970 kg/sq metre. Half of this (25,485.5 kg/sq metre) will create drag; the other half will create lift.
Multiplying this by the total wing area (25,485.5 x 283) = 7,212,396.5kg acting upwards. The plane weighs only 65,400kg, so plenty of lift there.

"Bernoulli"
For comparison, let's try to estimate the Venturi effect on the upper surface of the wing.
Let's pretend that, rather than a slight reduction in air pressure, the Venturi effect actually creates a total vacuum, a metre deep, over the wings.
The volume of the vacuum is therefore wing area x 1 metre = 283 cu. metres. To close the vacuum it either has to lift the plane 1 metre or suck in 283 cu metres of air from somewhere nearby.
283 cu. metres of air has a mass of 1.25 x 283 = 353.75kg.
The plane has a mass of 65,400 kg. A hundred and eighty-five times more mass and therefore more inertia. The plane might fall infinitesimally less rapidly than g but it won't fly.
Conclusion
Neither the Newtonian nor the Venturi model predicts enough lift to explain heavier than air flight.
Boyle's law does.
Gareth
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Gareth Morgan
Posts: 181

Country: Greece
Wales (we)
Print view this post

Re: A question

#19  Postby Gareth » Jan 28, 2016 9:04 pm

Since then I've found the original experiment that gave rise to the Bernoulli idea and the methodology is seriously flawed.
Gareth
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Gareth Morgan
Posts: 181

Country: Greece
Wales (we)
Print view this post

Re: A question

#20  Postby Animavore » Jan 28, 2016 9:05 pm

OK this... this... is new.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44748
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Welcome New Members

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest